Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (4190)	3/22/2002 12:30:10 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

A few points: the Franciscans who rode with the Conquistadors protested the treatment of the Indians to the Pope To my knowledge, only one did (de la Landa). the Teutonic tribes that destroyed the Western Empire were probably improved by being Christianized Highly speculative. The same claim can be made about the Mongolian barbarians who invaded China. most of the Holocaust rescuers were believing Christians Who else would they be? Most of the European population claims to be Christian. Atheists and agnostics are rare birds. And Jews were certainly in no position ot rescue each other. I do not think that unbelief is more rational than belief. I believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. Is this rational? As E once put it to me (slightly reworded) "There are lots of things I don't believe in. I don't believe I can lift Manhattan with one hand. Or that I am holding a tiny city to small to be seen in the palm of my hand. Is it irrational not to believe these things?" But even those with a missionary purpose succor the non- believer, for how, if he is turned away, will he be converted? That certainly sounds like the humanity and charity you are so proud of has an ulterior motive. That ulterior motive is ultimately power and wealth. Popular support can be translated into those. Christians should certainly know this. (So far, 12- step programs have a better rate of success than most other treatments for dependency). Questionable. They no doubt have good PR. Whether they really have better results or are just better at blowing their own horns is subject to debate. I myself have known several alcoholics who quit drinking without any involvement with AA. Thanks for keeping your head over the Jew- hater comment. I myself found that offensive. I think you are quite well aware of my feelings towards Evile. By the header rules, I had no basis to ban him. I finally decided I was entitled to one "moderator's whim" ban. He won the "honor" by a country mile. There was no second.

To: Neocon who wrote (4190)	3/22/2002 1:11:12 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

What matters is how the institution behaves, and how the congregants tend to behave and believe. Also, not how they are alleged to have behaved several centuries ago, but right now. OK, omitting historical iniquities, would you say that the situations in/with Palestine, India, Afghanistan, Tibet, Sudan, Iran, Georgia and Indonesia are improved by religion or by the activities of the religious? Would you say, for example, that Gujurat is more or less polarised by religion? ... the Teutonic tribes that destroyed the Western Empire were probably improved by being Christianized... Well, you would say that, wouldn't you... The Saxons converted with 'fire and the sword' might disagree. Seriously, that is NOT a good example... especially bearing in mind who sacked the Eastern empire later <g> In the modern world, the mainstream of religion, institutional and personal, is not at all oppressive, but is a haven for those oppressed. But the mainstream is not the point. 'Some religions are harmless' is hardly a defence. There are nice people, and there aren't. The nice people don't cause trouble. I wouldn't say this is an argument either way. As I have pointed out, most of the Holocaust rescuers were believing Christians, both Protestant and Catholic Historical? Anyway, most of the people in Poland, France etc were 'believing Christians' at that time (still are), so who would you expect to make up a majority of rescuers? Superstitious was your word. What's the difference between reading tea leaves and nibbling a communion wafer anyhow? I think it a reasonably accurate term, on the whole. Polarising? See top. And you can hardly expect me to be impressed by 'the attempt to bring ecumenical harmony' - LOL, why the disharmony in the first place? Religions seek to convert (overtly or covertly), and all (major ones, anyhow) divide into believers (who will win) and the infidels (who, one way or another, won't). Even Buddhism requires its 8fold path for true enlightenment. The only exception I can think of here is the ancient Greek, which judged you on deeds rather than belief - but then again you were liable to get zapped directly by a god if you stepped out of line, LOL. Religion may bridge other gaps - or it may disunite where there would be no gap. But it does differentiate and divide. As for rationality, the best that I'll concede is Karens/E's point on agnosticism. We can't prove there may not be something (although it's got no proof of ever having done anything, so I'd say it's rather moot anyhow) ... but any specific belief I do find irrational. Meanwhile, very few religions don't proscribe something or other - it may be what I would think of as a desirable proscription (e.g., murder) or not (e.g., alcohol) but they still restrict. Most call for obedience to some way of life, or rules. They all restrict your mindset. They all necessarily dictate that other ways of thinking are wrong. Many condemn different thinkers to torment (more or less eternal). etc. etc. I would call those the opposite of liberating. Arguments read better with wit, IMO - otherwise they can be too dry. They're not weakened by colourful simile. I try and keep the substance in there too. I feel I succeed. But don't forget, we are writing here for and before an audience. I tend to write as though I were in formal debate for that reason, if perhaps a trifle more precisely... I see no reason to conceal my lack of regard for most religious thought... I hardly need to concede that, it's blatantly obvious <g>